Mt st. helens institute is noticing the glacier advance too...hmm.. It seems odd that there would be a glacier there at all with all the things working against it: the eruption, and then global warming, and now with the recent volcanic activity the mountain has seen in the past couple years...

Click to expand...

Wow, a response to your statement. i know I know, its crazy to actually want to refute being called a liar, but its in my nature I guess. You said I was a liar, I said no I wasn't and backed that up with proof of advancing glaciers in washington. So were you lying about me lying? Me thinks you might have been.

All of the glaciers on Mt Saint Helens melted during the eruption. That is not to say that the temperatures from thence forth would always be above freezing. It would be assinine to suggest so. Because we still have winters on top, because global warming has not yet proceeded to preclude such accumulations, there will be some accumulation of snow. Particularly where it had been completely melted off my another previous severe heating event. To suggest that Mt Saint Helens will never have snow on it again simply because it erupted some 30 years ago is assinine. In addition, it takes hundreds even thousands of years for snow to get to the depth where the weight compresses the underlying snow to ice. THAT has not occured yet on Mt Saint Helens or only to a very extreme limited extent. They call it a 'glacier' but in fact it is a glorified snow field - the beginning of a 'potential' glacier. They are witnessing how snow accumulates in the pre-birth of a glacier... not a glacier yet.

Click to expand...

Actually only 70% of the glacier melted during the eruption. So it is still a glacier. Anyway i found it is interesting that it was still advancing despite being on the active rising dome and with global warming.

The fact is there are glaciers that are growing. But they are the one percent (or less) when 99 percent are melting... DRAMATICALLY melting... the clear trend is one of serious accelerated warming. And yet folks in denial will pull the one cat out of the hat as a majical event that global warming is not happening.... and they will cling to it still even after I have demonstrated that the cat and the hat can be explained rationally. The snow field acculuations on Mt Saint Helen only demonstrate that it still snows in the mountains - and that it is still cold enough in winter to accululate snow even though it has warmed (similar to the Alaska situation). What else can I say. There will always be folks who intentionally stick their head in the sand.

Click to expand...

And your right, the majority of glaciers are retreating, but do you really think it is because of the warming in the past 30 years? First off, lets get this out of the way, the vast majority of glacial melt occurred in the first half of the century. Ok, now lets talk about how glaciers respond to climate change. Glaciers are massive compressed ice sheets, yeah you know that already. The earth has been getting much warmer in the past 30 years, yeah you have mentioned that a few times. How fast do glaciers respond to climatic stimuli? Well this is what the glacier program at Rice University has to about glacial latency periods(hey, you know that word):

ice sheet: 100,000 to 10,000 years

large valley glacier: 10,000 to 1,000 years

small valley glacier: 1,000 to 100 years

So for example, for a small valley glacier it takes roughly 100 to 1,000 years after the change in climate for the glacier to be affected in a highly noticeable manner. So would the "human induced" climate change in the past thirty years have affected a glacier? Unlikely. Even if it had, the difference would be negligible. Could the larger glacial retreat in the early part of this century have been caused by humans? A profound No.

What would be interesting is to see if the scientist you are talking to can provide some info and background on why he feels the way he does...

Click to expand...

I was talking about the member of this board with the username of crew634. He responded to this thread on the first page. I do not know him personally, and do not claim to say that what he says his fact. I just think that he has quite a bit of credibility by being down there.

...Aside from that philisophical point, why not try to curb the use of fossil fuels anyhow?...

Click to expand...

I definitely agree. We should try to reduce our consumption and reliance on fossil fuels. I just don't think that we need to do it in a "sky is falling" sort of way.

Side note: I want to thank James Mello and others who have responded in a civilized manner. As for Wildlander, lets try and converse in a way that doesn't require calling the opposition a "liar" or "in denial."

It's the rate that this is occuring that's the alarming part. Based on various sources, the temp change of these events can be studied and compared to current patterns. From the literature that's out there, it's significantly faster than should be expected.

If the information were purely based on the airport temps, I'd be like you. But it's not, the record is coming from all sorts of sources (biological, geological, etc...).....

Click to expand...

The temp. gauges are not all at airports, your right. But i do believe that FT is touching on an important factor with these changes. Urbanization. If any human activities has an effect on the temperature, not world wide mind you, it is urbanization.

In the vast majority of these temperature gauges, especially in the United States, there has been urbanization and massive population growth in the surrounding areas. As we should all know, cities hold heat. The blacktop, being black, gathers and stores heat. Be it at airports or by a building, the blacktop has quite a influence.
These temperature gauges should be in an open field. The majority of them in the U.S. and many all over the world are in or are directly by urban areas or areas of large growth.

Now do the temperature of these cities affect the temperature of the planet? Insignificantly, if at all.

And I will add one more thing so people do not accuse me of waffling. This does not mean that the earth is not warming, simply that the change isn't as dramatic as some would have us believe.

The temp. gauges are not all at airports, your right. But i do believe that FT is touching on an important factor with these changes. Urbanization. If any human activities has an effect on the temperature, not world wide mind you, it is urbanization.

In the vast majority of these temperature gauges, especially in the United States, there has been urbanization and massive population growth in the surrounding areas. As we should all know, cities hold heat. The blacktop, being black, gathers and stores heat. Be it at airports or by a building, the blacktop has quite a influence.
These temperature gauges should be in an open field. The majority of them in the U.S. and many all over the world are in or are directly by urban areas or areas of large growth.

Now do the temperature of these cities affect the temperature of the planet? Insignificantly, if at all.

And I will add one more thing so people do not accuse me of waffling. This does not mean that the earth is not warming, simply that the change isn't as dramatic as some would have us believe.

Click to expand...

I was staying out of this fray but this is a good point. I've always had concern about the rise of temperatures at certain sites over a long period of time. I think urbanization is definitely influencing the increase. It was documented ten years ago or so that cities like Atlanta and Houston were creating there own weather because of deforestization and development. Summer thunderstorms were more frequent and severe. I can't help to believe this isn't driving some of the other statistics,

I'd say that Americans are 96% idiots... This thread certainly supports that premise. Ask the dude at McMurdo if he's a climate change scientist. Now ask all the people (read: climate change scientists) in my department why they just spent millions of dollars on this http://www.biotron.uwo.ca/... I'm an American who's spent seasons in the Arctic and in the Antarctic. I've been a biologist for a long time, and THERE IS NO DEBATE. The same way THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION. Even responding to misinformed ideas and accusations tends to lend credibility to those that profess them. Dawkins is right... The saddest thing is that all the folks on here who might know something about fishing claim to know something about science as well. There are a couple of biologists who occasionally post meaningful replies to misinformed rubbish, although it certainly seems their numbers are dwindling... I wonder why... At least all you Washingtonians ended up voting for Obama...

Here's a dissenting opinion from a well qualified scientist though I'm sure one of the scientists commenting here will call him a whack job. However it's also clear that idealogy is also unfortunately driving this debate way to forcefully. Well founded skepitism is ridiculed and is certainly dropped from the public debate. When's the last time any contrary data to the "Consensus" has been presented by the lib media who has clearly taken a side in this debate? I don't have a problem in believing global warming is occuring. I just feel I'm being evangilized into believing so.

Global Warming: A top climate scientist calls the theory that won Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous." Others would speak out, he says, if they didn't fear retribution from those who put ideology over science.

Dr. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmospheric department at Colorado State University, who has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster, made that assessment at the University of North Carolina over the weekend.

"We'll look back at this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," he said.

Climate scientist William Gray, skeptical that man is responsible for global warming, is unswayed by political pressure.
Meantime, said Gray, "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Not schooled as a politician or showman like Gore, he told the group of 300, including meteorology students, that "the human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major impact on global temperatures."

Gray said that a natural cycle of ocean temperatures related to the amount of salt in ocean water was responsible for global warming, which he acknowledges has taken place. As part of this natural cycle, global temperatures will eventually cool again.

He says that fluctuations in hurricane intensity and frequency, Exhibit A in Gore's inquisition, have nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels or human activity, but with changing ocean currents.

He noted that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared with 83 from 1957 to 2006, when the earth warmed.

At a National Hurricane Conference held earlier this year in, appropriately enough, New Orleans, Gray said that this phenomenon "goes back thousands of years. These are natural processes. We shouldn't blame them on humans or CO2."

At 78, Gray stands on his record as a pioneer in seasonal hurricane forecasts and no longer fears the career death that many of his like-minded peers risk if they dare to stray from the politically popular climate orthodoxy that gave Gore his Nobel Prize for activities that have nothing to do with world peace.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," Gray said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Gore says he will give his $1.5 million prize to a green charity, the Alliance for Climate Change in Palo Alto, Calif. But as a group of economists, including four Nobel Prize winners, reported in 2004, there are better ways to help the planet.

They found that one dollar spent fighting HIV/AIDS produced $40 in social benefits, and that one dollar spent on fighting malnutrition yielded about $30 in social benefits, but that one dollar fighting to lower CO2 emissions yielded between 2 and 25 cents in benefits.

And, as we've said before, what greenies propose stunts economic growth and is a recipe for global poverty.

In an Associated Press interview at the hurricane conference, Gray said of Gore: "He's one of those guys that preaches the end-of-the-world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about."

I'd say that Americans are 96% idiots... This thread certainly supports that premise. Ask the dude at McMurdo if he's a climate change scientist. Now ask all the people (read: climate change scientists) in my department why they just spent millions of dollars on this http://www.biotron.uwo.ca/... I'm an American who's spent seasons in the Arctic and in the Antarctic. I've been a biologist for a long time, and THERE IS NO DEBATE. The same way THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION. Even responding to misinformed ideas and accusations tends to lend credibility to those that profess them. Dawkins is right... The saddest thing is that all the folks on here who might know something about fishing claim to know something about science as well. There are a couple of biologists who occasionally post meaningful replies to misinformed rubbish, although it certainly seems their numbers are dwindling... I wonder why... At least all you Washingtonians ended up voting for Obama...

Click to expand...

The easiest way to fuel skepticism is to tell somebody they can't ask questions.

Its very disingenuous how the debate about AGW always gets steered to a discussion about GW. THERE IS DEBATE ABOUT AGW. Of course we effect our environment by burning fuels. It's been that way from the very first time mankind started a fire. But exactly how, and to what extent? The complexity of the system is far beyond our current understanding. Otherwise, your climate change scientists would be unemployed, and millions of dollars would not be spent trying to figure this out.

Sorry, but I'm going to ask questions when someone shouts me down while simultaneously reaching for my wallet with one hand and the keys to the kingdom with the other. I'm just funny that way.

of course, gray has disagreed. so where is his peer reviewed study(s) that refute climate change???? they don't exist! what we have is another opinion. and yes, the 'scientists' on the payroll of gas and oil were the original ones to claim this was a hoax. but you will note, all they have to show is their OPINION, that is totally worthless in light of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and published.

I don't understand why those who are clearly qualified to tender an opinion about a peer review study are so quickly dismissed because they don't have a peer reviewed study themselves. I think there is a little too much coziness in peer reviwed studies....like people, with like views. There is all kind of anedotal evidence to show that atmospheric science is far from precise. The number and severity of annual hurricanes predicted are usually far off from there preseason prediction. So what makes all the modeling for climate change so more reliable? As I said before, I have no fear in believing that global warming is occuring, I just think it's been a predetermined outcome for many of the scientists involved particularly as any dissenting opinion, if you can find it, is killed off quickly.

. . .When's the last time any contrary data to the "Consensus" has been presented by the lib media who has clearly taken a side in this debate?

Click to expand...

As Mr. Hays pointed out in the post above yours, there's an entire other level this discussion is playing out on that does not appear in the 'lib' media.

It's called scientific discourse and occurs in journals, conferences and other forums that you could certainly read or attend if you or others here made the effort to do so. As Hays also notes, the problem is that far too many of us here confuse the question of man's contribution to the process as a public referendum in which we all get to vote. Sorta like the old saying, "Don't confuse me with facts. I already know what I want to believe."

The scientific community suffers no such illusions.

Perhaps the reason Dr. Gray's opinion is a minority dissenting one is that he's a professor emeritus, that is, retired and thus no longer involved in active participation in the scientific community.

The plain fact is that we can debate it here until hell freezes over (or rather until the Artic melts) and our popular, non-scientific, yet passionately held opinions still won't add up to a pile of shit.

K

BTW, ever notice that the media is only portrayed as 'liberal' when it presents opinions that are not cherished by conservatives? Just a thought . . .

Here are some quotes from Carl Sagan, as they seem appropriate given the direction that this thread has taken...

"In a democracy, opinions that upset everyone are sometimes exactly what we need. We should be teaching our children the scientific method and the Bill of Rights. [Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan]"

"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 30, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]"

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]"

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. [Carl Sagan, Cosmos television series]"

"One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014'. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvinenced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]"

"In Italy, the Inquisition was condemning people to death until the end of the eighteenth century, and inquisitional torture was not abolished in the Catholic Church until 1816. The last bastion of support for the reality of witchcraft and the necessity of punishment has been the Christian churches. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 413, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]"

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]"

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]"

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. [Carl Sagan, Contact, pg 244]"

"Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"

"Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"